@ zenelectro: yes, I believe its not going to be great either, nothing like a close in phase noise plot in sight, if it had good close in phase noise, they would be selling on that point and it would be priced in a different bracket. that is what I said that that got misrepresented as saying it cant sound good because its cheap, I simply said it cannot measure well or it would not be this cheap, Epson arent a charity and clocks have a pretty narrow task that is fairly well understood by them.
its harmonics will be different part to part and interact with the digital filter selected, the input jitter of the BCK, which is quite important for the ESS, the input sample rate etc and then we have the harmonics of the gear used to play it, the jitter encoded into the mix by the ADC etc etc.
to predict that with any type of reliability... good luck. i'll take a predictable low harmonic clock any day of the week. clocks are meant to be predictable.
but you are right, these subjects are difficult to breach, Coris would get offended each time too when I said pretty much the same thing and then me being me, I escalate when people start making up reasons for technical superiority instead of accepting its a subjective quality. its equivalent to suggesting someone who likes simple low feedback circuits likes the distortion profile, only thats a bit more predictable in that even harmonics are generally more pleasing and its more Gaussian
indeed, but it cant touch/improve the master clock jitter of course, since thats what it uses to reduce the incoming jitter.
its harmonics will be different part to part and interact with the digital filter selected, the input jitter of the BCK, which is quite important for the ESS, the input sample rate etc and then we have the harmonics of the gear used to play it, the jitter encoded into the mix by the ADC etc etc.
to predict that with any type of reliability... good luck. i'll take a predictable low harmonic clock any day of the week. clocks are meant to be predictable.
but you are right, these subjects are difficult to breach, Coris would get offended each time too when I said pretty much the same thing and then me being me, I escalate when people start making up reasons for technical superiority instead of accepting its a subjective quality. its equivalent to suggesting someone who likes simple low feedback circuits likes the distortion profile, only thats a bit more predictable in that even harmonics are generally more pleasing and its more Gaussian
Last edited:
I have an open mind, at least I hope I do, but does this also explain the increased resolution?
I did?
That is an interesting thought.
But again where does that increase in resolution come from. The SAW does not sound like it is adding niceness, in fact it seems to do the exact opposite. It sounds less romantic - and the initial reaction can be a little puzzling - and the longer you listen, the realisation that it a different presentation. Certainly what it does for the bass, and Coris heard this too, I started to hearing textures that I had not been aware before. Better presentation of rhythm and pace, tighter imaging but also natural as the correct size is better perceived, more air around voices and instruments, better separation of the instrument or voice from the soundspace - slap echoes from corners of the soundstage not clearly defined before. (Soundspace and soundstage is not the same thing.)
"A clock is a clock" I was told, yet what you Terry is saying is at least of interest, that the sound we hear can be affected by clocks with different spectrum spreads, does indeed have an affect. So I was ridiculed by this person (actually two of them in concert), yet I find what you say more worthwhile and I am not ignoring anything you have said. And I am not offended.
In the Sabre DAC's ACR, could this be some kind of dither effect triggered?
There is also something else, and this is the trickiest part of all, but when extreme ULF filtering is done, what I hear from that and what I hear from SAWs seems rather compatible - like it is going further down the same path. I can only report what I perceive - so I still wonder whether some further power supply isolation is achieved.
Cheers, Joe
Hi Joe - I'm fascinated by the SAW oscillators sounding better than the more expensive xtals. I have a question on this - has anyone done measurements of jitter when the xtal oscillators are in-situ in a player? Seems to me that power supplies might be playing a big part here because presumably the impressive specification for jitter with xtals is made with the best possible power supply in the lab? As a quick stab in the dark here, maybe the SAW oscillators have better PSRR so work better than xtals in typical setups where the power supply to the clock isn't ultra-clean.
Last edited:
Is OK. We may just trust Epson. I use actually their 125Mhz SAW oscillator and is very good indeed.
I meant that when about large production batches sold to the big (well known) dealers companies for reselling/distribution, the factories have to follow an quite restrictive contract, when about the specified parameters and the deviation allowed for an batch components.
When about this (quite unknown custom order) 1000 components batch, is a little bit different...
But let`s have trust that Japanese Epson will hold its high level reputation for high quality components producer.
You sceptical guys! What for so much theories, and never ending discussion? It is not more easy and reasonable to just try out this SAW, and have those "conversations" after?
I can not understand what is so difficult tu solder an such oscillator inside your device and hear what is coming out? I did. It is different sound in the favour to this SAW type oscillator. Why? It may be found it out. But if we struggle about theoretical/abstract aspects, when the most involved people in those discussions have never ever had/heard/measured this oscillator, we do not go further with this.
I can not understand what is so difficult tu solder an such oscillator inside your device and hear what is coming out? I did. It is different sound in the favour to this SAW type oscillator. Why? It may be found it out. But if we struggle about theoretical/abstract aspects, when the most involved people in those discussions have never ever had/heard/measured this oscillator, we do not go further with this.
its not theory Coris, worse jitter that is.
Oh haha sorry I see another has come up with the same explanation while grasping at straws
yes abraxalito has come up with the same idea, yes mate that was one of the theories I came up with for the irrational idea that worse could be better in some applications (easily tested by sending it to Ian). it relies on the power supply for the crystek or other clock inflicting more jitter than the difference between the basic close in phase noise.
Oh haha sorry I see another has come up with the same explanation while grasping at straws
yes abraxalito has come up with the same idea, yes mate that was one of the theories I came up with for the irrational idea that worse could be better in some applications (easily tested by sending it to Ian). it relies on the power supply for the crystek or other clock inflicting more jitter than the difference between the basic close in phase noise.
Last edited:
Hi zenelectro
I understand very well, and agree too, that SAW oscillator is specified lower than another type ones. That because is no any reason for the producers of such oscillators to specify it for another special parameters.
But over all those thing, this SAW it sounds better. I agree too with (your) theory that spreading the jitter spectrum which it may happen with this type oscillator, it may explain the subjective appreciation of an better sound.
At least one it may be interested to have a better sound out of the involved device, than having an lowest jitter level and another very high performance parameters out of an oscillator. You may agree that we do not listen/enjoy the music out of an gear with an scope or something beside, monitoring all the time the jitter, the noises, or the system`s parameters. Such situation is not normal at all, but is used in some cases when one it may be interested to find out one or another about how is working the system.
But anyway it is an challenge and interesting in the same time, to find out why an low spec oscillator it may lead to a better sound out of an DAC system. We can further work on this...
Coris, don't pay much attention to him - qusp.
Take a look at his own description on his left column: "Mean-spirited shatterer of illusions".
Rather arrogant, wouldn't you say? A self-anointed Pontifex Maximus.
Here in Australia we have a name for somebody like that, a "crap-stirrer."
In Internet Parlance, that also means he is a Troll.
Take a look at his own description on his left column: "Mean-spirited shatterer of illusions".
Rather arrogant, wouldn't you say? A self-anointed Pontifex Maximus.
Here in Australia we have a name for somebody like that, a "crap-stirrer."
In Internet Parlance, that also means he is a Troll.
I suppose YOU think came up with that first?
WRONG
Been saying that for years. Join the queue behind me.
See, you are not the only one who can play your ridiculous game. Now just behave yourself, make yourself useful, we shall be forgiving and forgetful... as they say, become a useful member of society.
A narrow mind starts with a narrow view, his own.
Last edited:
Understood qsp.
This is a tricky discussion because we have peoples products (upgrades)
being (indirectly) scrutinized as a result responses will be affected. I try
to avoid conflict but it's not so easy.
I have to say I have a certain degree of frustration, technically speaking,
trying to make sense of this whole scenario. On one hand Joe is promoting
power supplies that have super low LF noise and very good 'stability' , but
then we have a clock which is poor in this area of performance. From a
purely technical perspective it is hard to join the dots so to speak.
The second reason, which up till now I wasn't going to get in to was the
results I have had with my own clocks. However, I think it is relevant to the
discussion. Refer to the phase noise plot of one of my 'zenclocks'. As you
can see these -do- have very good close in phase noise. That is -95dBc
at 1Hz offset.
These are based on custom made 11.2896MHz OCXO. Sine wave OP, the
crystals are custom made by batch. The supplier gives me complete
set of measurements with each and every clock. I do my own squaring /
level shift, separate PS for every element. So far these have sonically beat
every other aftermarket clock on the systems tried. They are expensive.
So as you can see my results are at odds with results from SAW but there
are other issues WRT 100MHz versus 10MHz, SAW vs crystal, also power
supply 'Q' factors etc etc. I will talk later gotta scoot.
Attachments
I hope you are not suggesting I am here for that reason.
This thread is about the Oppo 105 - I was the first to show how to connect the clock input on the 105 fitted Mediatek chip. On the 95 thread I did likewise. Anybody can connect the clock of their choice to that point and I haven't dictated anything in that regard. Ask Coris, who was initially sceptic that an additional clock there would make a difference. He confirmed it did. In fact, my clients are nowhere near this or earlier thread. So the DIY side of my conscience is pretty clear.
I think I have done as much as anybody to contribute to those two threads. It has not been to gain something financially. Because it hasn't.
Re SAWs, I am as curious as anybody else is. I only tried it on a whim because a PDF brochure (aimed at the military) expounded the word "stability" over and over again - and that they made them in the 100MHz range and I thought "Sabre" and there they were in stock at Farnell. Be a dummy if I did not try it.
I am not too frustrated when I listen to the music this thing produces. Then I can compartmentalise the technical side, and understand there is a conundrum. Maybe there IS something to solve? I have no idea why doing incredible, and yes, even ridiculously low frequency filtering has the sonic effect that now hundreds of people have heard - they can't all be wrong. Even Allen said he had no idea why this worked. But then again, why/how does the like of Dustin Foreman able to prove he can hear certain anomalous sigma-delta effects that are even lower (I believe) in level than these jitter/phase noise effects. I gather he can do this blind. Have you heard that too?
Also I am still leaning towards some kind of PSRR effect.
What do you think of Bybees?
Believe me, you are not the only one able to be a sceptic. Quantum mechanics? Is that just a way to explain that which is unexplainable? I don't have an opinion... yet.
Cheers, Joe
Last edited:
Yes, you were the first doing that... Because I did not have the time to look at that before you...
Contact Anne Chin (Ms), for good measure mention my name, annecsy@megagoal.com
If you add your order, this will likely expedite them making the batch.
Please let me know when you have placed order. She asked me, when we spoke first time on the phone, whether I used Paypal, which of course I do. So that method of payment will be OK with them.
Copy and Paste:
Anne Chin (Ms.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Manager | Megagoal Pte Ltd l Technical Support - Field Application
Tel +65 6289 6007 l Fax +65 6289 6010 l Mobile +65 9749 9306
Email: annecsy@megagoal.com
33 Ubi Avenue 3 #07-21 Vertex Tower B Singapore 408868
Website : Megagoal Pte Ltd
Cheers, Joe
I think there is a little error about the oscillator to be ordered. It may be this type: Epson XG-1000CA 54MHz CB
I see in the data sheet that this one have 50ppm, while CC is specified for 100ppm
I`m not very sure if will be possible to change the placed order... I will try. Maybe you want too contact the company to precise this detail.
I see in the data sheet that this one have 50ppm, while CC is specified for 100ppm
I`m not very sure if will be possible to change the placed order... I will try. Maybe you want too contact the company to precise this detail.
I am not worried too much about that - this is simply drift over a long period of time. In the past we have used both 50ppm and 100ppm versions of oscillators and the only difference has been cost.
I have just send them USD $435 PayPal payment, includes registered post, so hopefully they will expedite it.
Cheers, Joe
I have just send them USD $435 PayPal payment, includes registered post, so hopefully they will expedite it.
Cheers, Joe